2,007 years and counting. 2.1 billion people and counting.

it’s the secularists – the CINOs, atheists and agnostics that opened the doors. Not the Christians.

TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Wwwwwhhhhhooooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

That is the sound of that statement going right over my head, and I did not understand it at all.

Would you please explain?

Thank you.

William

This gives you the full experience of the sound, perfectly balanced for your listening enjoyment….

Sheesh, you are stubborn and stupid.

I believe this is called “Christian love”.

Don’t you understand how the bible is written and translated (look at the footnotes fool).

It’s actually impossible to understand such a thing, given that even the most ardent Christian apologist is forced to admit that the original autographa no longer exist. The question of how the Bible was *compiled* is entirely a different matter. (It was done by committee.)

What site are you using to get your mis-information?

right2bright on August 24, 2007 at 4:53 PM

It’s called “my brain”. I’m sure you would love for it to be a website because then you could attack the website instead of responding to my argument. (Which flying animals have four legs?) I guess you’re just going to have to be content with slurring me for the time being, and you seem very content with that.

Islam is one-thousand times worse. This is why Christians and non-Christians must be allies. This is also why you need to understand why I am not a Christian. You reject my ideology, and I’m okay with that. Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Politics doth make strange bedfellows of us all.

Religion and politics often create alliances of theological opposites. Christians and Jews work together on almost everything. Christians and Mormons are usually on the same side of the fence (What the hell happened to Harry Reid?). And, Christians and atheists can work together on security issues but don’t have as much common ground on matters of social conscience. Islam is such an ideology of hatred and killing that I don’t see how Christians and Muslims share much in common. As soon as you reach a tipping point with Muslims they start killing those who think differently.

Think we can hit a 1000 comments by end of the weekend?

Lawrence on August 24, 2007 at 4:24 PM

No telling but I’ve definitely found the thread I need to battle those bouts of insomnia!

You need to be okay with my rejection of my your ideology, and I want you to understand that it’s not based on blind anti-Christian hatred. I have specific objections to Christian philosophy, and I hope you understand what they are by now

I think that’s what you meant. I’m fine with you not wanting to be a Christian, and thanks for helping me to understand where you’re coming from. A lot of my friends are atheists or agnostics, and it doesn’t bother me at all. I was just hoping for some insight as to how and why you got to where you are. I don’t agree that Christianity is ‘guilt based’, but your point was well made and I respect your opinion. I even like challenges to my faith every once and a while, because in the end I think I come through a little bit stronger.

We all as Americans have the right to pursue whatever ideology that we want to (or don’t want to) as long as it doesn’t deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property.

I made this same point in one of my earlier posts. I think the right to choose is the best right any human being has.

I think my conversation with you is finished. I enjoyed it, and thanks for answering my questions.

Is that really what the study bible’s footnote says

If you were the scholar you would have a study bible and know that’s what it means. Sheesh, you are stubborn and stupid. Read it, then read it again, then again, and it will begin to sink in. Don’t you understand how the bible is written and translated (look at the footnotes fool). When my son was 8 he could have told you that. What site are you using to get your mis-information? I would like to know, because no way would a normal person make such strange unrelated, arguments. It has to come from a Christian or Jewish hate site.

What site are you using? or What reference are you using?

I am using Stong’s Hebrew Concordance with Greek and Hebrew Lexicon as my base reference book.

That’s very well put, and I think it’s funny that we draw two very different conclusions from it. I think it’s wonderful that someone would love me so much to endure that, and I don’t feel guilty for being loved.

I wrote that partially to prove that, yes, I have been a Christian before. But I don’t find that beautiful or wonderful any more. I thought “The Passion of the Christ” was a Christian snuff film. The whole “get excited about watching a man being tortured to death!” makes me sick to my stomach. It was only palatable when I bought into the “I’m bad” stuff that my religion had taught me.

This seems to me to be your primary objection to Christianity (correct me if I’m wrong on that please). I don’t really know any Christians who go around feeling guilty all day. Maybe you do. If the guilt aspect is what your criticisms of Christianity stem from then I don’t think your criticisms are valid.

I object to the gospel. I think it’s harmful because it’s misanthropic and designed to inspire guilt. That’s my primary objection to Christianity: it hurts people by making them think that they were “born bad” who then have to go get a “fix” in church. People are not born bad. “Imperfect” does NOT imply “just as immoral as John Wayne Gacy”, but that’s the only conclusion one can draw after reading Rom 3:23.

My secondary objections are the other teachings of Christianity, such as pacifism, meekness, sloth, and self-mutilation. Insomuch that those mandates are ignored only makes Christianity fake.

You seem to have almost a hatred towards it, to the point of researching it just to prove to others how ridiculous their beliefs are. You seem uncomfortable to just live with your own beliefs.

I do not deny that I have a very low opinion of the “born bad” ideology. Do I hate it? I think hate is too strong a word to use. But you have to remember that in most forums, especially conservative forums, Christians (such as you) are quite comfortable with dominating and ruling the discussion. How often have you come across an individual who does NOT hate Christians but has a deep knowledge of the Bible, a good understanding of Christianity, and specific objections to certain, harmful aspects of your religion? I understand how it may seem to you that I’m uncomfortable with just living with my own beliefs, but can you also see that, in another light, I’m merely standing up for what I believe? If Christians retain evangelism in hostile territory as their religious right, then I think it is fair (this is America, after all) that I retain the exact same right, particularly when the only aspects of your religion that I object to are those that I deem cause harm.

I know you don’t think it’s a good religion to follow, but do you see Christianity as a threat to your well being, on the same level as radical Islam?

Islam is one-thousand times worse. This is why Christians and non-Christians must be allies. This is also why you need to understand why I am not a Christian. You reject my ideology, and I’m okay with that. You need to be okay with my rejection of my ideology, and I want you to understand that it’s not based on blind anti-Christian hatred. I have specific objections to Christian philosophy, and I hope you understand what they are by now. We all as Americans have the right to pursue whatever ideology that we want to (or don’t want to) as long as it doesn’t deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property.

BTW, if he would pick up a study bible, he would see that our description of a rabbit and cud is accurate. All of the study bibles (he listed) have, as a footnote, the description as a rabbit is cud because of regurgitation.

Is that really what the study bible’s footnote says (in “That’s what it says, but that’s not what it means!” fashion) in regards to Deut 14:7? Because it would then be even *more* wrong! Rabbits do not regurgitate their meals. Instead, they eat the “first pass” of feces directly from their own anus. (Sorry if that’s news to any rabbit-eaters out there!) I suppose that still qualifies as “generally moves after chewing” to you, but it does NOT qualify as “regurgitation”.

ooops, I guess our scholar is a little wrong

right2bright on August 24, 2007 at 3:48 PM

It is you, not I, who is claiming to be the Hebrew scholar. I’m relying on the scholarship of those who translated the NIV. The Bible says that some flying animals have four legs. Wiggle your way out of that one, scholar.

But certainly there are some feelings of guilt aren’t there? Some tiny, fleeting feelings of shame? I mean, look at Jesus there on the cross, painfully heaving himself up on the cross to catch each excruciating breath. That’s what the little platform is for under his feet: so he’ll have a way to push himself up for each breath and thus extend the duration of his horrible death. Just look at him suffering. The perfect, sinless man did it all for you. Your sins put him there. He’s an innocent man, but your sins did that to him. In that sense, you are culpable for his very death every time you sin, and you still keep on sinning and torturing Jesus. You torture him to death all over again every single time you sin because he dies for every single sin you commit.

Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 2:03 PM

That’s very well put, and I think it’s funny that we draw two very different conclusions from it. I think it’s wonderful that someone would love me so much to endure that, and I don’t feel guilty for being loved.

Christianity is a misanthropic and guilt-based religion, and thus I don’t think it’s a good religion to follow. Are my criticisms of Christianity valid, or is my inability to appreciate Christianity caused by some character flaw in me?

This seems to me to be your primary objection to Christianity (correct me if I’m wrong on that please). I don’t really know any Christians who go around feeling guilty all day. Maybe you do. If the guilt aspect is what your criticisms of Christianity stem from then I don’t think your criticisms are valid. You seem to have almost a hatred towards it, to the point of researching it just to prove to others how ridiculous their beliefs are. You seem uncomfortable to just live with your own beliefs.

I don’t think you have a ‘character flaw’, but I am trying to understand why you spend so much time on this issue. I know you don’t think it’s a good religion to follow, but do you see Christianity as a threat to your well being, on the same level as radical Islam?

I’ve enjoyed reading your comments and am not trying to insult you, I just want to get some kind of context as to where those comments are coming from. Thanks.

doriangrey on August 24, 2007 at 2:46 PM

BTW, if he would pick up a study bible, he would see that our description of a rabbit and cud is accurate. All of the study bibles (he listed) have, as a footnote, the description as a rabbit is cud because of regurgitation. The bible scholars were quite aware of this…apparently one (or two) bible scholars on this have not read a study bible.
I am sure he could reach out and grab one of his many study bibles and find this out. (sarc)

Loved to watch them twist in the wind.

ooops, I guess our scholar is a little wrong…a little more study by him would help. Looks like Google let him down.
Braaaaaahaaaaaaaw…

I also want to add that I generally move after chewing.

Any one studying the bible would understand that right off, and would have read the discussions about using certain words and why. Most bibles disclose that, and certainly every “study” bible does.

That reminds me of the “NIV Study Bible” that I used in High School. Consider another weird thing Jesus said:

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. Mat 5:29-30

I remember the footnote in my study bible almost verbatim, because I took great comfort in it at the time. The footnote read, “Jesus is not advocating self-mutilation. He is saying that we have to take extreme measures in avoiding sin.”

In other words, the purpose of the footnotes in a “Study Bible” are to play, “That’s what it says, but that’s not what it means.”

The bible still must use limited words because adding seven more words to descibe each action would make the bible unyielding to read. The bible would be literally thousands of pages longer.

That defense doesn’t fly in regards to Deut 14:7. If your scholarly and learned translation is correct, then those incompetent hacks who translated the KJV, NIV, and RSV could easily have written, “rabbits generally move after chewing”. Instead, they screwed up, grossly violating your wisdom, and stupidly wrote, “rabbits chew the cud”. I don’t see how that would add thousands of pages, since it’s only one extra English word to avoid making the Bible say something that is flat-out wrong.

Which flying animals have four legs? I notice you haven’t yet given me a gelah or an ‘alah to defuse that bomb.

That is why some bibles still use the word “kill” instead of “murder” in the ten commandments. No one disputes the work “murder” is more accurate.

Except the translators of the KJV. *They* thought that “kill” was the correct word to use in Ex 20:13. But since you are skilled in Hebrew, why don’t you tell us the Hebrew word that was translated into “kill/murder” in Ex 20:13? Perhaps going back to the original Hebrew will be instructive as to which English word is a more accurate translation since the experts disagree.

Yes, because it is so much better to deny a incontrovertible reality than to make anyone feel bad.

I think you meant to type “Yes [it is okay to make someone feel bad if it helps bring them to Christ], because it is so much *worse* to deny a incontrovertible reality than to make anyone feel bad. Your response was long and cogent, and I didn’t think you were trying to be sarcastic with me.

If what I thought you meant to write is, in fact, correct, then I accept that Christianity is (at least, partially) a religion about winning converts by making people feel bad about themselves. I find this to be harmful and manipulative. Your defense is to say that it is “true anyway”. I can appreciate the love and forgiveness parts of your religion, but can you honestly expect me to respect the “It’s okay to hurt people” part of it?

[Do you feel guilty about my typical guilt-inpsiring Christian description of Jesus on the cross?] No, not even remotely

If you don’t feel guilty about Jesus’ horrible death on the Cross, then what, specifically, *do* you feel guilty about in regards to your religion? If it’s nothing, then that’s fine, you would just be a rare Christian.

I do on the other hand recognize that because of circumstances beyond my control it was impossible for me to please god, that being the consequences of my ancestors actions.

I understand that this “original sin” concept is part of Christian dogma, but it is not Biblical.

“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” Deut 24:16

I don’t see how you can be held culpable for the actions of your ancestors if “each is to die for his own sin”.

Please forgive me for not responding to giant swaths of Scripture. That’s not an argument. Why not just say, “Go read the Bible” and save yourself the trouble?

his glaring lack of just such knowledge and misapplication of what little he does have available seems to verify your supposition that he is googling rather than quoting anything that he actually understands.

That was in response to my (ballsy) assertion that I know the Bible almost better than anyone here, and I submit to you that your criticism of me, particularly the “glaring lack of … knowledge” is grossly unfair. You must remember that I made my assertion after you wrote this:

The only individuals that the bible un-categorically states will suffer eternal torment in the lake of fire are the Devil, his angles and those who accept the mark of the beast. To suggest that anyone else will is to make conjecture that is unsupported by the actual text of the bible.”

And you were, in fact, dead wrong. Jesus himself stated that those people who didn’t do five specific works would braise in hell for zillions of years (Mat 25:31-46). So if anyone deserves to labeled with a “glaring lack of knowledge” then it deserves to be you, because you falsely stated that hell was reserved only for the Devil, his angels, and those with the mark of the Beast, and then had the nerve to follow it up with, “To suggest that anyone else will is to make conjecture that is unsupported by the actual text of the bible.” Will you have the humility to admit that the atheist apostate showed you up on biblical knowledge? You’ve been strangely silent on that point since I trumped your hot air with the words of Jesus Christ himself.

doriangrey on August 24, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Thanks, his response to me says that. It is rudimentary in translations to not be able to use certain words exactly as they are phrased. The Hebrews had a limited number of words so the words are dependent on the context. The modern day interpretors understood that, and note that in their discussion on what phrases to use. Any one studying the bible would understand that right off, and would have read the discussions about using certain words and why. Most bibles disclose that, and certainly every “study” bible does. Funny how he has missed that in his grand research.
It is a known fact, things like articles and definitive and on-definitives, change the whole meaning of a phrase. That is why some of the newer bibles are a little different. As computer studies of ancient texts (primarliy from UCI and their ancient text computer programs) allow the cross study of those ancient languages they make subtle changes. The bible still must use limited words because adding seven more words to descibe each action would make the bible unyielding to read. The bible would be literally thousand s of pages longer. They had seveal words for love, but only love used in modern texts. Several words for wine, but only one used in modern texts. A simple phrase like “I am” becomes something off the charts when studied in its original texts. Hundreds of examples, that is why Watchtower of the Jehova’s witness fame is so ironic when you know the true meaning of a Watchtower.
If you choose any bible study, this will be pointed out…further proof of no bible study foundation, not even the simplest.
That is why some bibles still use the word “kill” instead of “murder” in the ten commandments. No one disputes the work “murder” is more accurate. It is not a matter of being right or wrong, it is a matter of being more accurate. If someone argues, you usually point it out and they say “thank you” I now understand. Something some people cannot grasp.
However, the orignal texts are still availible and are referred to when you meet something like this “cud”. This is discussed at the most basic level of seminary. That the only true accurate word (actually words), is from the historical biblical text…everything must be compared to that, or you get these ridiculous arguments that the bible is incorrect.
These are arguments of fools, not of educated scholars.

PRCalDude on August 24, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Your straw man obviously illustrates why you think they way you do about atheists. You assuming to know what atheists think is similar to how Republicans assume they know what Democrats think when in reality all you’re doing is assigning your biases to the other group.

I appreciate your improved tone, thank you!

I think you are focusing on certain aspects, and forgetting that there is an entire framework in which the pieces fit together. I’m hammering away at this because a key step for my understanding Christianity was recognizing that the parts I didn’t understand or like, I would set aside for a time, accepting that they were there for a reason and eventually I would get the bigger picture. You let us know in your earlier comments that you are bothered by the guilt aspect of Christianity, and I was hoping I could tie that in to other aspects to put it in better perspective for you.

I don’t object to the entire framework of Christianity. I only object to the bad parts of Christianity. But, as I said before, the good parts of Christianity are indeed good, but they don’t make the bad parts good, too.

Mercy? Awesome!
Benevolenece? Rad!

Guilt? That sucks rocks!
“Born rotten”? I hate it like poison!

If you can give me a Christianity that retains all the mercy and benevolence but kicks the guilt and “born rotten” aspects to the curb then I’d chug that kool-aid. I just don’t see how you could pull it off as long as Christianity ain’t Christianity without the gospel.

Don’t feed the troll.

Considering his last post to me (Loundry on August 24, 2007 at 1:41 PM)I find that I must accept your assessment of the situation. There is simply no way that he could have so grossly misunderstood what I posted were his intentions any other than to provoke, which is quintessentially the nature of a troll.

Furthermore after his assertion

“You’re absoulely wrong. I beg you to remember that I know the Bible better than almost anyone here.”

his glaring lack of just such knowledge and misapplication of what little he does have available seems to verify your supposition that he is googling rather than quoting anything that he actually understands.

Don’t you guys get it Loundry knows nothing about the bible. He is Googling it, and just throwing out verses to jerk your chain.
I have shown his ignorance in the study of the bible. This is his way of getting attention.

I’d generally written you off, but it seems like you need a little more attention yourself.

First of all, your precious cud study:

It means, he chewed than there is a movement of food, a restoration, a general movement after chewing. Hey, these guys used the words they could, “cud” did not exist.

Simply throwing out gelah and ‘alah shows nothing. The translators of the KJV, NIV, and RSV all translate Deut 14 including “rabbits … chew the cud” and “[ruminants] chew the cud”. If it merely (and vaguely) means “a general movement after chewing” (as you claim it does), then the translators, more competent and knowledgeable in Ancient Hebrew than you, would have translated it as “a general movement after chewing”. As I’ve stated many times, your argument is with them, not with me. You are saying that the translators of the KJV, NIV, and RSV screwed up royally when they wrote “rabbits chew the cud” because they should have written “rabbits generally move after chewing”. What else did they translate incorrectly? You should let me know soon so that I can know when to stop relying on the KJV, NIV, and RSV as accurate sources of Biblical information.

I’m talking about the godly sense, in which there is absolutely no moral difference between any of us and John Wayne Gacy (Rom 3:23). We’re all equally sinful because we all fall short.

Am I correct about your religion?

I think you are focusing on certain aspects, and forgetting that there is an entire framework in which the pieces fit together. I’m hammering away at this because a key step for my understanding Christianity was recognizing that the parts I didn’t understand or like, I would set aside for a time, accepting that they were there for a reason and eventually I would get the bigger picture. You let us know in your earlier comments that you are bothered by the guilt aspect of Christianity, and I was hoping I could tie that in to other aspects to put it in better perspective for you.

You can’t be forgiven unless you’ve first done something wrong; i.e., you’re guilty of something, that’s why you need forgiveness. The guilt and the forgiveness are inextricably intertwined.

100% agreement there.

Something tells me you conveniently sell the solution along with the problem.

Not sure what you mean. I’ve got nothing to sell. There are cult versions of Christianity that are oriented towards fundraising, and I’ve met several victims of that, but the genuine article is free.

Did anyone read the Time article Drudge linked to about Mother Theresa? Very interesting.

Is it okay to make people feel horrible about themselves if it helps to bring them to Christ?

Yes, because it is so much better to deny a incontrovertible reality than to make anyone feel bad. Sorry but the concept of sin inherent in Christian theology isn’t about making anyone feel guilty, its about getting people to face reality. It’s about personal responsibility and getting individuals to accept that they are responsible for their actions.

Newtons third law of motion applies to more than just physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This applies to individual codes of conduct as well. Every action or interaction in your life has a consequence to it. Those consequences may be positive or they may be negative but they will exist.

Think about Jesus dying a horribly painful death for your sins that you continue to do to this day. Do you “feel” guilty now?

No, not even remotely, do I acknowledge my responsibility for the actions in my life that resulted in the necessity of his act, yes I do. While I myself bear no direct responsibility for the actions that resulted in original sin I am not free from the consequences of those actions.

The actions which set in motion original sin continue to this very day to have profound consequences. Just as I had no personal choice in the color of my skin, hair, eye’s or my gender does not negate the reality of what they are. Hence I feel no guilt what-so-ever over being a white male with brown hair and blue eyes.

I am however what I am, and as such responsible for my actions and how I conduct myself. Likewise having been born a human being under the curse of sin which I inherited from my ancestors I had no control or responsibility for this incontrovertible reality. However, my lack of personal responsibility for the actions of my ancestors does not suspend or eliminate the chain of consequences set in motion by my ancestors.

That chain of consequences set in motion by my ancestors is as equally constrained to continue by Newtons first law as any physical object. Until acted upon by an equal or greater force that chain of consequences will remain in motion.

Jesus Christ’s sacrifice was just such a equal or greater force acting on that chain of consequences known as sin. No one forced Jesus Christ to die on the cross, he did it willingly out of love for his father and love for his father creation.

Hence I feel no guilt what so ever over his crucification. I do on the other hand recognize that because of circumstances beyond my control it was impossible for me to please god, that being the consequences of my ancestors actions. My ancestors culpability stops however at my personal actions. It is my own actions for which I bear responsibility.

The Apostle Paul clarified this far more eloquently than I could ever hope to.

7:1 Or do you not know, brothers [1]—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. [2] 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. [3]

7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.